This research looks at the experiences and preferences of low-income Caribbean, Pakistani and Somali people in balancing work and care responsibilities. It examines the particular challenges faced by these ethnic minority groups, and the challenges for employers and policy.

For most people, the two most important roles in life are caring for loved ones and working to earn a living. Over the past decades, more people have entered the labour market, while the proportion of those providing care has risen too. These developments create challenges for those seeking to ‘balance’ work and care, and are likely to continue given underlying demographic changes and developments in the labour market.

Key findings

Discrimination prevents low-income ethnic minority people from balancing work and care;

Many people are unaware of free childcare provision for 2-4 year olds;

Benefit changes are likely to make it more difficult to balance work and care for these people;

The atlas provides interactive maps of geographical variations for a range of health conditions and environmental agents at a neighbourhood (small-area) scale in England and Wales.

The Environment and Health Atlas for England and Wales is an independent publication produced by the Small Area Health Statistics Unit, an academic unit funded by the Medical Research Council and Public Health England.

Aims

To provide baseline information for policy makers and the public on geographic patterns of environmental agents and disease.

To help in development of hypotheses to understand and explain variability in disease risk that may relate to the environment, lifestyle factors and/or location.

Following on from this, to help in development of research to investigate potential causal relationships between environment and health factors – where either evidence or lack of evidence for an effect provides important information to inform public health and policy.

Disability-free life expectancy (DFLE) estimates provide an insight into the population’s functional health by indicating the number of years an individual might expect to spend free from a limiting disability or health problem in his or her lifetime.

Using 2011 Census data, this analysis is the first to calculate DFLE by the newly established NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups. DFLE estimates are useful for those who plan and provide health and social care, nationally as well as locally.

Key points

Females spend more of their life with a disability compared with males, showing gender inequality in disability-free life expectancy (DFLE) across England.

Generally people living in Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in the North of England live more years with a disability compared to those in CCGs in the South.

Differences in DFLE are not solely confined to the North-South divide; males and females living in NHS Tower Hamlets.

The CCG with the largest difference between males and females in the proportion of life spent disability free is NHS Bradford City; 6.4 percentage points at birth and 9.6 at age 50.

At age 65 London based CCGs NHS Brent and NHS Harrow have the largest difference between males and females in the proportion of life spent disability free (8.7 percentage points).

This study looks at hundreds of theories to consider how income influences health. There is a graded association between money and health – increased income equates to better health. But the reasons are debated.

Researchers have reviewed theories from 272 wide-ranging papers, most of which examined the complex interactions between people’s income and their health throughout their lives.

Key points

This research identifies four main ways money affects people’s wellbeing:

Material: Money buys goods and services that improve health. The more money families have, the better the goods they can buy.

Psychosocial: Managing on a low income is stressful. Comparing oneself to others and feeling at the bottom of the social ladder can be distressing, which can lead to biochemical changes in the body, eventually causing ill health.

Behavioural: For various reasons, people on low incomes are more likely to adopt unhealthy behaviours – smoking and drinking, for example – while those on higher incomes are more able to afford healthier lifestyles.

The Office for National Statistics analysis looks at how age and area influence ‘Good’ health among disabled people.

A disability is not a barrier to ‘Good’ health

Across England and Wales the proportion of people who are in ‘Good’ health despite a disability increases with age from around one in fifty children (0 to 15) to around one in six elderly (85 and over). However, in some ways this simply reflects the increased incidence of disability at older ages.

The likelihood of being in ‘Good’ health despite a disability however decreases with age, more than half of all disabled children are in ‘Good’ health compared to a fifth of adults aged over 50. This may be because children with a disability (or the parents and carers of children with a disability) have a more positive outlook than adults when it comes to thinking about their general health. The findings may also reflect more adequate health and social care provision among the young disabled population, allowing them to overlook the limitations of their disability.

Disabled males are more likely to be in ‘Good’ health than disabled females

Among the disabled population males are more likely than females to be in ‘Good’ health despite their disability, particularly when their disability limits them a lot in their day-to-day activities. Differences are most noticeable at younger ages which may reflect different social and cultural attitudes to health among males and females at different ages.

Strong relationship between where you live and how you view your general health

Disabled people living in more affluent areas are more likely to be in ‘Good’ health than disabled people living in more deprived areas. After the age of 35 the proportion of disabled people with ‘Good’ general health in the most affluent areas is around twice that of disabled people living in the most deprived areas. This may be because people living in more affluent areas are more able to overcome the limitations of their disability and so judge their general health more favourably. It may also because people living in more affluent areas have better access to adequate health and social care than people living in more deprived areas.

New analysis from the Office for National Statistics focuses on the extent of inequality in health and disability between more and less disadvantaged populations in England using Census 2011 and area deprivation data.

The distribution of health and disabling health conditions across the population of England is shown to follow a sizeable, persistent and incremental pattern; health outcomes generally worsen in line with greater levels of socio-economic disadvantage.

Key points

Men and Women (aged 40 to 44) living in the most deprived areas are around four times more likely to have ‘Not Good’ health compared to their equivalent in the least deprived areas.

Inequalities in health remain large, even at older ages; in the least deprived areas people aged 80 to 84 reported better rates of health than those 20 years their junior in the most deprived areas.

The inequality in health between the most and least deprived areas peaks at ages 55 to 59 for women and 60 to 64 for men.

Future fitness to enjoy retirement is likely to be more favourable for the least deprived population than the most deprived; at ages 60 to 64 disabling health problems are much less common among the least deprived.

The disability prevalence divide between the most and least deprived areas is large across the working ages of 30 to 64, where adults are expected to participate in the labour market.

The fact that both men and women in the least deprived areas aged 65 to 69 have similar percentages disabled as those aged 40 to 44 in the most deprived areas suggests fitness to extend working careers post the traditional state pension age for men (65) is more likely among the least deprived area residents.

What is the connection between growth and poverty in UK cities? Cities are increasingly seen as the drivers of the national economy, and the UK Government is devolving new powers to the largest and fastest-growing urban areas. Cities also tend to have concentrations of poverty.

An evidence review examines how strategies for economic growth and poverty reduction can be aligned.

Summary findings

There is no guarantee that economic growth will reduce poverty – in some economically expanding cities poverty has stayed the same or increased;

employment growth has the greatest impact on poverty, but if jobs are low-paid or go to workers living outside the area, the impact is minimal;

increased output risks worsening poverty because it can lead to increases in the cost of living;

some cities are tackling this by promoting employment in expanding sectors or providing training for disadvantaged groups so they can access opportunities associated with major infrastructure projects.